Too bad he handed power over to the military. Militaries aren't known facilitating the peaceful change of power.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I attended a diplomatic panel and brieing on monday in Prague where it was nearly universally agreed by the panel that the military would be the best solution to an interim government to fill a power vacum. I can see why it doesn't look like the ideal choice, but the military in Egypt still has the respect of the people, and if the step-down is structured properly, with cooperation between the US, Turkey and the Egyptian military, this is an ideal way of holding things together for the number of months necessary to structure a new government.
The alternative could have been a disaster in the civilian government completely collapsed on itself, and the military *took* power, rather than having it handed to them with the understanding that it is an transitional measure.
Really, the problem over the past week has been exactly this: who was going to fill the vacuum while the transition happened, so that the transition could happen? Many agreed from the beginning that the military was the only force in Egypt capable of doing this.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CNN is doing interviews en masse on the streets of Cairo, and almost every single person has said they are glad that the military is taking over. My initial reaction was negative, that this might have all been a ploy by the military to seize power, but, the people trust them, and I expect tomorrow and the next day we'll start seeing how the mechanics work out of building a democracy from scratch.
Reports say that Iranian opposition figures are calling for protests on Monday, and that many have been arrested preemptively.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was really inevitable that Mubarak would have to step down. The military refused to fire on the very citizens it was sworn to protect. So the only other way to restore order was for Mubarak to resign.
I have to compare this to the pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmin Square in China. The Chinese Military refused to fire on their own children. We all remember the striking photo of the elderly man who faced down a tank. But then the ruthless rulers of the last bastion of communist tyranny brought in a division of soldiers from Mongolia, who were perfectly willing to shoot down Chinese people. Thus the pro-democracy movement was crushed.
But now we will see how long it takes for the Muslim Brotherhood to turn Egypt into a theocracy governed by Sharia law and regards Western Civilization as their sworn enemy, and tears up its treaties with Israel. The military is just a caretaker, and the main political force in Egypt, as well as in many Arab lands, is the Muslim Brotherhood, which hates America and spawned Al Qaeda and Hamas. They will most likely be the ones to form a new government.
Egypt already had a democracy in outward form. They have a constitution, elections, and a president. Of course, the problem was that president has been president for 30 years. I wonder if the new government, when it is formed, will agree to term limits. If it does not, then we will know for sure that the Egyptians have traded a secular tyranny for a religious tyranny. If history is any guide, the latter will be worse than the former.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:the main political force in Egypt, as well as in many Arab lands, is the Muslim Brotherhood
That's not even remotely true.
You need to listen to Samp Ron. TMB isn't small time by any stretch, but they are not even remotely in a position to step in either by force or even subterfuge.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prediction: no one on this board will ever be able to persuade Ron that the Muslim Brotherhood (note how scary that group sounds!) aren't a bunch of Sharia-lusting thugs. At least not to the extent of actually admitting it in plain English, and that he was mistaken about it. Never-no amount of informed commentary will suffice, because there will always be some commentator that can be turned to in spite of dozens or even scores of other voices that will be listened to instead.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously Ron, the scenario you just presented as fact is totally divorced from any honest assessment of the situation that I've heard or read in the last two weeks. Where are you getting your facts from, if anywhere?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, Ron's statement may be false, but to me it looks like you're trying to imply that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't want Sharia? Most sources I have read generally agree that they do.
If I recall correctly one of their official stated goals is to replace existing governments with Sharia through nonviolent means. The "nonviolent" part is obviously up for debate and I think reasonable and relatively well-informed people could disagree as to how nonviolent they really are, but it's been my impression that the "Sharia" part is pretty much just a fact.
Did you have some reason to think otherwise, or am I misreading you?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I hate the idea of term limits, with them we wouldn't have had Trudeau for so long.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rakeesh, Ron's statement may be false, but to me it looks like you're trying to imply that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't want Sharia? Most sources I have read generally agree that they do.
If I recall correctly one of their official stated goals is to replace existing governments with Sharia through nonviolent means. The "nonviolent" part is obviously up for debate and I think reasonable and relatively well-informed people could disagree as to how nonviolent they really are, but it's been my impression that the "Sharia" part is pretty much just a fact.
Did you have some reason to think otherwise, or am I misreading you?
In fairness, that IS a stated goal of theirs. But I think you have to view it in a sort of relative context to what we have here in America. Groups that argue about school prayer, "In God We Trust" on our money, and other attempts to integrate Christianity formally into the government, or even putting the 10 Commandments on the steps of a state government buildings, I think we're talking something more in lines with this, rather than an armed attempt to force strict codes of behavior under threat of death for violating.
Recently there was a bruhaha about the DNI saying that they were largely secular, and it was proved wrong with a spokesman from the MB saying flat out that it was the ultimate goal of theirs, but he followed that immediately but saying it wasn't an immediate goal, and that if they could eventually convince the Egyptian people that it was a good idea, then why not?
Lots of people are pointing to the fact that Hamas and Islamic Jihad were splinter groups of MB as proof of their radicalization, but that ignores the fact that Hamas and IJ LEFT the Muslim Brotherhood because they weren't radical enough! When you get into the details I don't think it works as well.
Plus you have to realize that the Muslim Brotherhood is only the force it is because it developed in mosques, which were the only place for political organization under Mubarak, since it was the only place he wouldn't crackdown on organizers. Now that people have freedom of organization, who knows what will happen?
Rough guess polling on Egpyt has put popular support for the Muslim Brotherhood somewhere around 20%, and that's before any viable alternatives really even crop up, as will happen over the course of the year. It's kind of an all or nothing prospect here. The military will NOT let the Muslim Brotherhood just slink in and seize power. If they want power, they'll have to get it in an election, and if the military waits a year to let groups organize, then they'll have some real competition.
Fears of the Brotherhood appear to be overblown by most estimates I've seen. Are they Islamic? Sure. But so what? Aren't there a TON of religious based political groups in America? Do they have power? Yes! Do they have a strangle hold on power in America? Not really. They've managed to turn a few social issues into political hot potatoes, but other than that they're just another interest group.
By and large, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the non-violent part until they step out of line.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If I recall correctly one of their official stated goals is to replace existing governments with Sharia through nonviolent means. The "nonviolent" part is obviously up for debate and I think reasonable and relatively well-informed people could disagree as to how nonviolent they really are, but it's been my impression that the "Sharia" part is pretty much just a fact.
Sorry, I wasn't clear but you make a good and fair point bringing it up, Dan-I was criticizing Ron for the implied characterization altogether as Sharia-lusting thugs. That is folks who will go for the Sharia thuggishly, violently.
It sounds to me as though you personally dispute the non-violent part yourself, but perhaps I'm misreading. If so, can I ask why?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
By and large, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the non-violent part until they step out of line. [/QB]
That's a very good point Lyrhawn. I honestly haven't done too much study on the Muslim Brotherhood (apart from blips I hear on NPR), but I have to agree with you in principal.
Just because someone classifies themselves as Muslim and wants a government in line with Muslim law does NOT make them a terrorist. Unless they're actually being violent, then they should get the benefit of the doubt.
It sort of goes back to how people will become what you expect them to be. If everyone treats them as if they're violent thugs, then it's really easy for them to actually become violent because they no longer have anything external to lose.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn: You say that Hamas is a splinter group that left MB because they weren't radical enough. Everything I've read indicates that Hamas is more a Palestinian "wing" of MB, operating in Israel, and that they still have strong ties together. Which, to me, would do a lot to invalidate the whole "nonviolent means" claim MB makes.
Rakeesh: See above, really. I don't think I consider myself well informed enough to dispute the nonviolent claim per se. But from the somewhat limited reading that I have done, I definitely consider myself skeptical.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That isn't the impression I've gotten. But I'm happy to read any information you'd like to put in front of my eyes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't remember offhand the original sources that told me that (and have to much on my plate today to really go hunting), though a quick browse through the wiki entry on MB seems to confirm it. Obviously, that's wikipedia, so, take it with however many grains of salt you generally apply to wikipedia.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seemed to me at the time that the people who coined the term "the domino effect" were overlooking the fact that the only motivation that could bring about such dramatic social change was that people will organize and fight for freedom and/or progress. It didn't make sense that if one country was overtaken by an evil dictatorship that other countries would fall in the same direction, unless there is something fundamentally satisfying that underlies the change.
Another way of saying this is that I believe that in the free market of social change, good regimes will win out, and bad regimes may not disappear as fast as we'd like, but eventually they will come to an end. Also "the arc of history bends toward justice."
The Berlin wall was an example of this, when it fell away from soviet communism/oppression. This (and solidarity in Poland) was the beginning of a chain reaction of countries leaving the soviet bloc. There were some bad eggs in that chain reaction, but overall, I think progress was made.
Glenn Beck has lately been promoting the domino effect rhetoric with respect to Egypt and Islamic countries in general (including India, apparently), but Iran seems be be the most nervous of these countries, and it's not because they are going to be overthrown by an islamic revolution. Quite the opposite, in fact. My tendency is to think that if Egypt is the beginning of a domino effect, that it will tend away from oppressive regimes, not toward them. And given that the most visible examples we have of an Islamic Caliphate are the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the Iranian situation, the ripple will NOT be in that direction.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Glenn Beck has lately been promoting the domino effect rhetoric with respect to Egypt and Islamic countries in general (including India, apparently)
The last clip I saw of him, Beck was suggesting that most of Europe, including Spain, Italy, the UK (because student university fee protests = islamification) and even Ireland were already on fire from from Islamic rioting in the streets and would soon be part of this 'Caliphate'.
quote: Glenn Beck has lately been promoting the domino effect rhetoric with respect to Egypt and Islamic countries in general (including India, apparently)
The last clip I saw of him, Beck was suggesting that most of Europe, including Spain, Italy, the UK (because student university fee protests = islamification) and even Ireland were already on fire from from Islamic rioting in the streets and would soon be part of this 'Caliphate'.
Dude is a nutter.
IRELAND is going to be part of a 'Caliphate'??? I think that would probably take something along the lines of the Crusades to accomplish!
Seriously, do you have a link or anything for that? It would be interesting to read his logic (for lack of a better word).
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Seriously, do you have a link or anything for that? It would be interesting to read his logic (for lack of a better word).
He's just manic. A little insane, a great deal conspiratorial and paranoid.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
OK. I'm just...there's got to be a Glenn Beck fan here, or someone who sticks up for Glenn Beck fans, who can explain to me why I ought to have any shred of respect for the part of a person that brings them to the Glenn Beck part of the media market. Because I just don't get it.
And yes, I'm aware that was a snippet, but you know what? That snippet was completely dishonest. Every single bit of it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the TOS say we aren't allowed to make personal attacks on Glenn Beck? Or just people who are here on the forum? (Seriously. Just asking.)
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Does the TOS say we aren't allowed to make personal attacks on Glenn Beck? Or just people who are here on the forum? (Seriously. Just asking.)
It occurs to me that a personal attack would have to involve the notional presense of the party being attacked. Glenn Beck is not here. Also the attacks were clearly directed at his behavior, except for what Samp said. But since we aren´t having this discussion *with* Beck, I think Impeachment of his character is entirely fair game. If it weren´t, that would be a strange precident on this forum.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, I was pretty careful with my choice of words. The part of Beck's I can only characterize it as rant was completely dishonest. Linking protests throughout Europe to what was going on in Egypt was 100% dishonest, and I don't have any respect for an attitude that gets its news from that sort of outlet.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There isn't anything wrong with excoriating Glenn Beck for the things he is saying. I wouldn't be comfortable with the following scenarios.
1: Somebody here stands up for Glenn Beck and attempts to defend him, and is then insulted and belittled by other posters.
2: Glenn Beck himself joins this forum, and people proceed to insult and belittle him.
3: Mr. Card asks that people specifically avoid saying disparaging things about Glenn Beck. I can't imagine this happening but I was ruminating.
Stating that you intend to do something illegal to Glenn Beck or another poster because or opinions they hold is of course never tolerated.
Outside all that, I can't imagine that I would be required to discipline posters for saying negative things about people period. My job would get extraordinarily busier if I was. We couldn't even use Hitler, the Nazi party, Stalin, or Mao anymore as a benchmarks for bad behavior.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Society of the Muslim Brothers (often simply الإخوان Al-Ikhwān, The Brotherhood or MB) is an Islamist transnational movement and the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states. The group is the world's oldest and largest Islamic political group,[1] and the "world's most influential Islamist movement."[2] The Brotherhood has as its slogan "Islam is the solution."
Samprimary, Rakeesh, Blackblade, and anyone else who questions the facts I present: You are the ones who need to back up your supposed facts when you contradict any I present. I demonstrably have a much better knowledge of history than you do. Your apologies are expected.
kmboots, I resent your intimation that I ever fake anything, or ever have knowingly provided any facts that were wrong. I referred to the man who faced down the Chinese tank as elderly because that is how he was described by social historians William Strauss and Neil Howe in their book: Generations, The History of America's Future, in making their point about how members of his generation command respect of younger generations. However, after checking Wickipedia and other sources on the Internet, I see that some are saying that "tank man" was a younger person, whose identity is unknown for certain (though some guesses have been made.) Strauss and Howe's book was published in 1991 (the Tiananmen protest took place in 1989, only two years before), so they may not have had the information that became available later.
It shows a certain viciousness on the part of those willing to jump on me because of an incidental reference to the man who faced down the Chinese tanks as being "elderly." You make a major case out of this one word, reinforcing each other in what frankly seems to me to be pure hateful hysteria. Why should I ever take seriously anything you people have to say, when you show yourselves to be so lacking in self-discipline or common basic decency?
If you think you have a legitimate correction to make on a MINOR point like this, why not treat it as such, as you would with anyone else? Instead you use this as an excuse for defaming my character and motives, once again, like you always do.
I challenge you to recognize your moral obligation to give me the apology that you clearly owe me for your determined and methodical and continued efforts to slander me, for no valid reason at all--except perhaps for the fact that I maintain an anti-evolution and pro-Creation position which some of you manifestly cannot stand to have anyone champion in an articulate and logical manner.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are the ones who need to back up your supposed facts when you contradict any I present. I demonstrably have a much better knowledge of history than you do. Your apologies are expected.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This from Wickipedia:
quote:The Society of the Muslim Brothers (often simply الإخوان Al-Ikhwān, The Brotherhood or MB) is an Islamist transnational movement and the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states. The group is the world's oldest and largest Islamic political group,[1] and the "world's most influential Islamist movement."[2] The Brotherhood has as its slogan "Islam is the solution."
Samprimary, Rakeesh, Blackblade, and anyone else who questions the facts I present: You are the ones who need to back up your supposed facts when you contradict any I present. I demonstrably have a much better knowledge of history than you do. Your apologies are expected.
The quote you have presented calls the Muslim Brotherhood the "largest political opposition organization" in many arab states.
That does not in any way, shape, or form back up what you said, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood is "the largest political force in Egypt." It's not. Not even beyond the NDP and the military that has supplanted them in rulership of the country during this coup. Even the New Wafd Party is going to have more representation in the upcoming elections. Centrists will have more draw than MB revolutionaries.
You're wrong, again. And I bet you are completely incapable and unwilling to catch on to why Wikipedia calling them the largest political opposition group in the middle east does not back up calling them the largest political force in egypt. At all. Let me guess.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again you display your ignorance Sam. The fact is that the Muslim Brotherhood has been officially banned in Egypt for years. That does not mean they have been driven out or reduced in numbers; it only means they have become covert. It also means it is the only organization that the previous administration of Mubarak saw as a serious threat. Many current office holders and many candidates for office are believed to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but are keeping quiet about it. The military may have guns and tanks, but not the numbers to qualify as a majority.
Even though the Muslim Brotherhood claims to promote peaceful, non-violent change, they did nonetheless spawn Al Qaeda and Hamas, who of course differ from the surface appearance of the MB being against violence. Remember too that most Islamists are told that it is OK to lie to "infidels," meaning everyone else.
I have said this before, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. If you really want to have a clear understanding of history and of politics, you have to learn to read between the lines, because very few people in politics and involved in making history tell the truth overtly; everything is propaganda, unless a free press finally does its job (which unfortunately it does not always do, because the press has its majority biases too).
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are contorting away from my point. You aren't even addressing it at all in order to pretend that I wasn't aware of and/or that my argument was hinged around the Muslim Brotherhood being a banned party in Egypt. You're even talking to me like I'm a person who credulously accepts everything the MB says even though it couldn't possibly be more unrelated to anything I'm saying. I am not even using Muslim Brotherhood statements as any part of what I have said here at all. It's staggering.
The quote you have presented calls the Muslim Brotherhood the "largest political opposition organization" in many arab states.
That does not in any way, shape, or form back up what you said, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood is "the largest political force in Egypt." It's not.
Let me say that again IN BOLD.
The quote you have presented calls the Muslim Brotherhood the "largest political opposition organization" in many arab states.
That does not in any way, shape, or form back up what you said, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood is "the largest political force in Egypt." It's not.
You. Can. At. Least. Read. English. Please. Start. Addressing. My. Actual. Points. Not ones you have invented for me.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, yeah, I know, It's just not exactly his behavior you're critiquing so much as an actual thought disorder. The man is almost certainly bipolar.
ETA: Ack, why do you have to post videos of him? It's like watching someone with cerebral palsy trying to open a jar of pickles. It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's just... uncomfortable. There's actually something deeply wrong with Glenn Beck, and it has little to do with his politics. He is emotionally disturbed.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So how large is the Muslim Brotherhood's presence in influencing the current revolution in Egypt right now? Are they going to promote democracy, or are they taking a more fundamentalist approach? Are they good for Egypt or bad?
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I demonstrably have a much better knowledge of history than you do. Your apologies are expected.
However, after checking Wickipedia and other sources on the Internet, I see that some are saying that "tank man" was a younger person, whose identity is unknown for certain (though some guesses have been made.) Strauss and Howe's book was published in 1991 (the Tiananmen protest took place in 1989, only two years before), so they may not have had the information that became available later.[/QB]
So your defense - your proof that you know history better - is that you can quote some people who wrote a book and may not have had the information when they did. So as long as there is a single incorrect report of a historical event to reference, it's OK to tout that as fact even if more and better information come later?
I'm going to run that by they very next historian I can and watch how hard they laugh.
Maybe instead of telling everyone they owe you an apology you can grow a pair and say something like "oops, my mistake. I was basing that off of what looks to be out of date information. Thanks for the correction".
I know, I know... that would be awfully close to admitting fallibility so I shouldn't hold my breath.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the longer term I think probably the answer is a qualified "good." They represent at best a better organized pro-reform movement than any other in the country, which quality could help them become a platform from which reformers could gain some clout and organizational stability to stand upon.
I think the important thing to remember is that they do not represent the whole reform movement in Egypt- they just have a recognizable brand. As soon as some sort of democratic process gets off the ground, people are going to start competing and teaming up in new ways, and the best that can be hoped for the MB is that they serve as a positive example of peaceful organization, and possibly bring to the public eye some key reformers who will be able to bring the process forward in a productive way. As soon as more people are involved in the reform process, I think political exigency is going to temper the conservative aspects of the MB's platform almost right away- the first thing any successful government in Egypt *has* to do is establish its relationship with the US and regain its footing in regards to US/Turkish foreign policy. Turning away from the west now would be a major mistake, and I think there are plenty of reformers who are going to realize it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: So how large is the Muslim Brotherhood's presence in influencing the current revolution in Egypt right now? Are they going to promote democracy, or are they taking a more fundamentalist approach? Are they good for Egypt or bad?
That sort of depends on what you believe the Muslim Brotherhood is. Are they an Islamic group that wants people to CHOOSE to live under Sharia (as in, choose a Sharia based government)because they believe it will lead to the most prosperity for the nation. Are they merely a group of terrorist thugs who want to impose their fanatical ways on everyone else by using Sharia as a guise for controlling everyone who doesn't agree with them? Are they something in between, and if so, where on the continuum do they fall?
That question seems to be unanswered as of yet, or at least no one agrees what the answer is.
posted
Ron, are you a professional basketball player? Because that is some excellent pivoting away from the original point you were making which is what I was takin' issue with, if you're interested in challenging what I actually said. (Specifically that TMB in Egypt doesn't have a history of violent, nefarious government overthrow efforts with the ultimate aims of hatin' America n' stuff)
Which now that you've been called on it by no less than three or four people (mostly Samprimary), you'll either dig in deeper or pretend it never happened as has proven your pattern repeatedly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't even know where to begin with what you've said. However, I'm sure you realize that quoting Wikipedia isn't the best place to start. The place is anathema to real historians (a club that you apparently think you're part of). We don't mind going there for a quick reference or to get an idea on where else to go, but it's not a place you rely on, certainly not as proof to a doubting audience, for total fact.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron: I'm not sure why you are asking for an apology? If I'm wrong, then you are doing me a favor by pointing that out. Same goes for you if I'm right. I'm not sure why either us would need to apologize unless one of us said something they regret saying.
I don't ever regret being wrong, I regret not doing something about it when I can.
As to your original assertion. The Muslim Brotherhood's control over Arab states has zilch to do with Egypt. Egyptians don't even like being called Arabs, it's insulting. Further, Egypt social dynamics are quite divergent, (something we would expect is true of two different states in the US to say nothing of two different nations) from their neighbors.
As for proof, well lets look at a Muslim Brotherhood members response to concerns they want to turn Egypt into Iran.
Why would he even need to say that if Egypt is already full of slathering Islamophiles? Clearly there is enough of a secular sentiment in Egypt that at the very least the MB can't get all the power after proper elections, let alone just walk in and grab the reigns.
So then now lets hear what the MB itself has stated its goals are regarding Egypt. What the MB wants.
Now I'm sure you will notice they reject the premise that a secular Democracy is necessary for Egypt. That makes sense since they believe that there are certain guiding principles in their religion that are universally accepted amongst Egyptians. Sorta like our founding fathers with their whole God given rights agenda.
But they also reject the premise that you have to have purely secular government or a total autocratic theocracy. In any case, I'm sure they will have some influence on the new government as their supporters are not non existent. But lets be clear about some things. The MB was not the chief architect of this revolution. So they can't claim the credit and use that as a means to catapult to the top of government. Egypt has had a strong secular tradition for a long time already, sorta like Turkey, but not as extreme.
Are there religious nut jobs in Egypt who want the whole country to become like Iran, but for Sunnis? Of course there are. Just as we have some radicals here who think the entire United States belongs to Jesus, and so long as Americans become less and less committed to some branch of Christianity (which branch it is has never been firmly established.) we are going to be punished with natural disasters until we are either all dead, or all converted.
But I wouldn't start sweating until we see a new constitution, and can read what it says.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I challenge you to recognize your moral obligation to give me the apology that you clearly owe me for your determined and methodical and continued efforts to slander me, for no valid reason at all--except perhaps for the fact that I maintain an anti-evolution and pro-Creation position which some of you manifestly cannot stand to have anyone champion in an articulate and logical manner.
This is mindboggling.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
just_me, it might have been that simple had it not for people insulting my character and claiming that I "make things up" and that getting things wrong is what I always do about everything, and that if I do not answer someone's ridiculous and insulting diatribe, it means either that I am "running away," or trying to pretend it never happened.
Some of these characters have been repeating the same lying slanders about me for so long, others are duped into thinking there might be some truth in what they are saying, when in fact there is none. They hate me because I have shown I can answer their pro-evolution arguments, and have posed pro-creation arguments that are uncomfortably challenging for them to address, let alone answer. They would rather duck what I say and respond merely by claiming that I must be ignorant or dishonest. That is the way they almost always wind up responding to my posts. Let me call "tank man" elderly, and they make a federal case out of it, as if it proves every lying slander they have ever posted about me.
All they really prove is that they desperately need to be sanctified by taking heed to God's Word.
BlackBlade, I will simply repeat that you have to read between the lines, and you cannot take what various spokespersons for the MB or Islam say at face value, since their Imams have told them it is OK to lie to "infidels" (everyone else). You need to investigate a few more news sources.
I cited Wickipedia, because it was representative of what most other internet sites say on the subject. Granted, Wickipedia is not very authoritative. But I have no problem with quoting it if it seems in line with other sources. At least most people are familiar with the site, and know it is not identifiably conservative. That would be one of the likely criticisms were I to quote from Fox News Channel, even though "fair and balanced" Fox News is probably the least biased (hence highest-rated) news source on the planet. Did you know that a recent poll shows that FNC's Bill O'Reilly has four times the ratings as MSNBC's Chris Matthews (ol' Tinglefoot)?
I hope you are right, and that neither the MB nor any other overtly Islamic organization winds up taking over Egypt. But the majority of the Iranian people have long preferred Western culture and wanted a secular state, and they still got a radical Islamic theocracy rammed down their throats. Of course, Iranians are mostly Persians, not Arabs. But will that make enough of a difference?
None of us can know for certain what will become of Egypt, and the course its government will take in the future. But the history of the Middle East is not encouraging for the emergence of a pro-Western, secular state. Remember Anwar Sadat, one of the true heroes of Middle Eastern history; remember also who killed him, and why.
Here's the answer:
quote:The attackers included four enlisted men, an army major and a lieutenant. The major and two enlisted men were killed in the swarm around the reviewing stand, once other members of the military realized what was taking place. The rest were arrested. The attackers would eventually come to be identified as Islamist nationalists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood under the name of Islamic Jihad.
posted
Ron: It's wrong to assume that every single Muslim organization has the same Imams, and that all of them instruct their followers to lie so as to avoid detection until the world encompassing caliphate can be established.
The idea that the majority of Muslims do not value honesty is to be frank insulting. I've read the news articles about certain Imams saying it is permissible for Muslims to lie to infidels, or to murder them, or to commit crimes against them, so long as the motive is the spread of Islam, but that is one sliver of extremism that you can find in any ideology. Just look at the mindset of somebody who loads a gun and murders a doctor who performs abortions so as to "save" the lives of the unborn.
People who have violence or hate on their mind will often find that in order to get followers, you have to at least attempt to justify deviant behavior so as to make it palatable. The Muslim Brotherhood are not all liars, but I will grant you that by believing that, it conveniently narrows down your options as to how to respond to them. For example Glenn Beck telling you that progressives are all liars and they want to turn our country into some sort of Nazi Germany Maoist China amalgamation.
But anyway, I wasn't taking what they were saying at face value, I'm telling you to judge what they are saying by the context in which it is being said. Even if they have super secret motives, we can still read the constitution that is written and judge for ourselves.
Sadat's assassination was several decades ago, and in large part because of his later willingness to deal with Israel. Not because he wasn't Muslim enough.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade--fine, as long as we do check for ourselves, and not take everything at face value. Note the quote I appended to my last post, about the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the assassination of Anwar Sadat.
This is WHY when Hosni Mubarak assumed power after the assassination of Anwar Sadat, he banned the Muslim Brotherhood.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
